The summer holidays have begun, but not for all students. Some are currently engaged in going to law school – a few weeks of extra training during the summer holidays for those who have not reached their goals.
In the intermediate stage, however, it is usually not about the school’s most central subjects, but sports and health. Students with great difficulties in Swedish and mathematics go to law schools organized by the municipality, not to practice reading and mathematics, but to learn to swim. How is this possible?
I have worked as a teacher for almost 25 years and seen how the level of basic knowledge in core subjects has dropped. At the same time, the grades have been raised. The school today has many and big problems. If you listen to the school debate in the media, these problems are almost exclusively blamed on the independent school reform.
That’s right not. As a teacher, I mean that the basic problem is completely different.
Participating in swimming school on both the Easter break and the summer break is common, even among students who can barely read. The absurd situation clearly exposes a system error in today’s grading system. But above all, the erroneous view of knowledge that permeates the entire curriculum is made visible. It is, I mean, this erroneous view of knowledge that is the root cause of many of the problems that the Swedish school is struggling with such as declining results and grade inflation.
Grading is a concern for many teachers. How to interpret the knowledge requirements in the curriculum? What does the vague wording of the curriculum that we have to lean on in our assessment really mean? For example, what does “basic knowledge” in a subject mean?
For example to get an E (pass grade) in mathematics in year 6, a student is required to “have basic knowledge of mathematical concepts”. For the grade C, the student needs to have “good knowledge” of mathematical concepts and for the grade A, “very good knowledge” is required. What “basic”, “good” and “very good” knowledge in mathematics means is up to the individual teacher to interpret.
How, then, is it purely practical to evaluate knowledge with such vague knowledge requirements? In the fumbling for clarity, many teachers seek guidance in other ways than in the curriculum. It can be in teaching material, in one’s own opinion or to use the old proven method to compare students with each other – that is, to apply a relative grading system in practice. This has also been shown by the National Agency for Education’s report “Equivalent grades and merit values”.
Grading and valuing knowledge is not made easier by the fact that the curriculum is permeated by a constructivist and postmodernist view of knowledge. Such a view of knowledge means that there is really no knowledge to convey. Knowledge arises instead in a process in the meeting between teacher and student and is more an experience than absolute facts. With the help of such a view of knowledge, it is of course difficult to formulate precise and comprehensible knowledge requirements.
But in the middle of this mourning there is in fact a shining exception to the distorted view of knowledge and incomprehensible grading criteria. An exception that has been formulated on the basis of a different view of knowledge and through its clear formulation has had major consequences for how teaching and support measures are organized and prioritized in schools today.
This is the knowledge requirement in the part swimming in the subject sports and health. At the end of year 6, all students must be able to swim 200 meters, of which 50 meters in supine position, otherwise they get an F in the subject as a whole. The knowledge requirement is clear, absolute and measurable. There is no room for interpretation.
An “inflation” in the assessment of the moment is impossible, 200 meters is 200 meters. It is not possible for any school or principal to circumvent the requirements set out in the swimming component. It is a strong incentive for each school to ensure that students can really swim the 200 meters (of which 50 meters in the supine position) required at the end of year 6.
Swimming lessons are offered therefore in many schools already in year 4. Pupils may leave lessons during school hours to go to swimming school with staff in a nearby swimming pool. If they still cannot swim 200 meters, additional swimming schools will be arranged on holidays. Correspondingly, arranging support measures such as law schools for students who do not master basic knowledge of mathematical concepts, on the other hand, will be more difficult for the school to justify.
To understand why the level of knowledge is constantly falling, we do a thought experiment. Let it be said that the knowledge requirement in the swimming part would also have been unclear, if it had been enough to have “basic knowledge” in swimming to be approved. If so, how would it be interpreted? And had we still had equally extensive support efforts on the subject?
Maybe in that case it would be interpreted as enough to just be able to take a few swims? Or is it even enough to try, to dip in a pool? Maybe it would be enough to wave your arms ashore, so-called dry swimming? One thing would be certain: the proportion of approved students in the swimming component would not reflect the students’ actual knowledge. Grade inflation would be a fact.
The answer to the school’s problem is not constantly adding more resources. This is ineffective unless the view of knowledge changes.
1. Reintroduces a classic view of knowledge where facts and measurable knowledge are given much more space.
2. Make the knowledge requirements clear, measurable and understandable, just like the requirement in swimming.
Cheating with grades and assessment, which is very widespread today, would cease and relevant and previous support measures would be implemented to a much greater extent.
There are no more adults in school or the abolition of the “market school” which is the solution to the school’s problems, nor an increase in the number of teaching hours, more tablets or more money. Unless the view of knowledge changes, none of the measures will have any effect.